Nowhera Sheik vs. UOI - HYZO

ITEM Nos.1+3 COURT NO.
2 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 761-762/2021
THE STATE OF TELANGANA REPBY SPECIAL

OFFICER VANDHANA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S HEERA GOLD EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
W.P.(Crl.) No. 31/2020 (X)
Item No.3
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5966-

5967/2021
Date : 10-11-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA
For Parties Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR

Ms. Sweena Nair, Adv.
Mr. Sadashiv, AOR
Mr. S. V. Raju, ASG

Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv.
Ms. Sairica S. Raju, Adv.
Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, Adv.
Ms. Kanu Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv.
Mr. Sughosh Subramanian, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Saroj Kumar Padhy, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2022.11.10
17:34:33 IST
Reason:
1
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A. S. Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Rastogi, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Shah, Adv.
Mr. K. K. Tyagi, Adv.

Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bansal, AOR
Mr. Manish Das, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR
Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR

Mr. Anu K. Joy, Adv.
Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv.
Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR

Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv.
Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv.
Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv.
Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. K. V. Girish Chowdary, Adv.
Ms. Niti Richhariya, Adv.
Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR

Mr. Vishal Bansal, Adv.
Mrs. Rajeshwari Sankar, Adv.
Mr. Niroop Sukirthy, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Ovais, Adv.
Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR
Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR
Mr. Anuj Prakaash, Adv.

Mr. Niraj Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, AOR
Mr. Avinash Sharma, AOR
Mr. Md. Rashid Saeed, AOR
Mr. Aakarshan Aditya, AOR
Mr. Sadineni Ravi Kumar, AOR
Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR
2
Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, AOR
Ms. Aagam Kaur, Adv.
Mr. K. Manocha, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Saxena, Adv.
Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR
Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Umang Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Zahid Hussain, Adv.
Mr. Camran Iqbal, Adv.
Ms. Mumtaz Javed Shaikh, Adv.
Ms. Dipti Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR
Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR

Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv.
Mr. Shane Elahi Turkey, Adv.
Mr. S. Mansoor Rizvi, Adv.
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

Mr. S. K. Rajora, Adv.
Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv.
Ms. Shweta Sand, Adv.
Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Adv.
Mr. Abhijit Kamble, Adv.
Mr. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv.
Mr. E. Vinay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv.
Mr. Avineesh Jha, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R
We have perused the affidavits including the last additional
affidavit.
On examination of the material on record we issue the
following directions:-
(1) Learned ASG is right in contending that insofar as
the entertainment of claims are concerned there must be
3
a deadline. In fact claims beyond the deadline earlier
fixed have been received and processed. We must put a
finality to the issue and thus fix 30th November, 2022 as
the last date for receiving any claims where-after it
will be presumed that the claims have been abandoned/ do
not exist. Sufficient advertisement must be given for
the said purpose.
(2) There is a large discrepancy between the amount
assessed by the tax authorities as realizable from sale
of property as compared to what petitioners have stated
before us. While the properties are assessed at over 110
crores, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel states
that they have ready buyers which will fetch a price
amount over Rs.800 crores. We, thus, permit the
petitioners to file their offer in a sealed cover as
logically the buyer(s) would not like disclosures of all
details. We have emphasized to them the importance of
prompt payment specially of an amount of Rs.400 crores
which would be sufficient to satisfy all the investors
so far. Needless to say that any attachment of this land
would be agreed to be lifted or lifted by this Court to
facilitate the same.
(3) The bill of the tax consultant can be paid out of
the amounts lying with the SFIO.
4
(4) The investigation is stated to have been completed
which is kept by the SFIO. For the time being it may not
be submitted to the competent Court.
(5) Insofar as FSL lab is concerned, the story is
almost 4 years old but still the report has not come as
yet. SFIO to once again take up the issue of ensuring
that finality is put to the issue of the FSL report as
according to the petitioners some of the challenges
expressed by the tax consultant also arise from the
seizure of the computers and the same lying with the FSL
lab.
(6) The petitioners would continue to assist the
authorities for verification of claims.
(7) It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that
still NBWs are issued from different courts in different
states even though complete investigation is now with
the SFIO. This matter may be looked into by the SFIO and
the States will provide requisite data. The petitioners
may also provide the requisite details. We have
indicated that we will attend to this matter once the
money is brought into this Court.
5
List on 05th December, 2022 for perusing the sealed cover
offer from the buyers.
(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (POONAM VAID)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Nowhera Sheik vs. UOI - HYZO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nowhera Sheik vs. UOI - HYZO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nowhera Sheik vs. UOI - HYZO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ITEM Nos.1+3 COURT NO.

Criminal Appeal No(s). 761-762/2021

THE STATE OF TELANGANA REPBY SPECIAL

M/S HEERA GOLD EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s)

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5966-

Date : 10-11-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

For Parties Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR

Mr. Sadashiv, AOR

Mr. S. V. Raju, ASG

Mr. K. K. Tyagi, Adv.

Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR

Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR

Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR

Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR

Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR

Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR

Mr. Anuj Prakaash, Adv.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, AOR

Mr. Avinash Sharma, AOR

Mr. Md. Rashid Saeed, AOR

Mr. Aakarshan Aditya, AOR

Mr. Sadineni Ravi Kumar, AOR

Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR

Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR

Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR

Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

We have perused the affidavits including the last additional

On examination of the material on record we issue the

(1) Learned ASG is right in contending that insofar as

the entertainment of claims are concerned there must be

fixed have been received and processed. We must put a

finality to the issue and thus fix 30th November, 2022 as

the last date for receiving any claims where-after it

will be presumed that the claims have been abandoned/ do

not exist. Sufficient advertisement must be given for

the said purpose.

(2) There is a large discrepancy between the amount

assessed by the tax authorities as realizable from sale

of property as compared to what petitioners have stated

before us. While the properties are assessed at over 110

crores, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel states

that they have ready buyers which will fetch a price

amount over Rs.800 crores. We, thus, permit the

petitioners to file their offer in a sealed cover as

logically the buyer(s) would not like disclosures of all

details. We have emphasized to them the importance of

prompt payment specially of an amount of Rs.400 crores

which would be sufficient to satisfy all the investors

so far. Needless to say that any attachment of this land

would be agreed to be lifted or lifted by this Court to

facilitate the same.

(3) The bill of the tax consultant can be paid out of

the amounts lying with the SFIO.

be submitted to the competent Court.

(5) Insofar as FSL lab is concerned, the story is